PDA

View Full Version : Salary Cap?



tomno00
11-18-2008, 06:52 PM
Should baseball have a salary cap? I*

heat4life09
11-18-2008, 06:54 PM
yes

xander
11-18-2008, 07:03 PM
I think so. I hate how the yankees and red sox can always spend twice as much as any other team.

marlinsfan24
11-18-2008, 07:05 PM
I think yes, but no cuz it would be too complicated to sort out and the Yanks and Sox would lose half their players just to get under.

viktor06
11-18-2008, 07:10 PM
If there was a salary cap, there should be a salary floor as well. Something like 70-150m range

Ph1lly Diehard
11-18-2008, 07:12 PM
130m sounds fair at the max.

The Yankees are prepared to be around the 180m range and it'll only rise so 130 sounds like a fair cap.

In the MLB redraft we use 125m and it should be fine :p

mark1125
11-18-2008, 07:13 PM
If there was a salary cap, there should be a salary floor as well. Something like 70-150m range

Agree 100%. A cap would be nice, but some of these penny pinching teams need to step up or relocate.

bosox3431
11-18-2008, 07:25 PM
I think so. I hate how the yankees and red sox can always spend twice as much as any other team.

what about the Dodgers, White Sox, Mets, Anegles and Cubs? All had a higher payroll or were within 4 million dollars. The Cubs and Angels both look like they could surpass the Red Sox or come close. I jst love how everyone only *****es about the Red Sox and Yankees.

WarriorFan4Life
11-18-2008, 07:36 PM
yes, yes, yes. we need to limit the yankees and red sox from hogging all the good players. it is ironic that the yankees have not won **** and have huge amounts of money. screw yankees and red sox. And look at what the A's and the rays have done and they have not even half the salary the yankees and redsox have.

Giants and Oakland Athletics in 2009

CityofChamps924
11-18-2008, 07:41 PM
yes, yes, yes. we need to limit the yankees and red sox from hogging all the good players. it is ironic that the yankees have not won **** and have huge amounts of money. screw yankees and red sox. And look at what the A's and the rays have done and they have not even half the salary the yankees and redsox have.

Giants and Oakland Athletics in 2009

You just showed why we don't need a salary cap. Money is obviously a huge plus, but it isn't a necessity to win. A cap would just complicate things and create more mobility among players. If the revenue sharing system is increased and more teams have more money, then everyone would be able to bid on the players they want.

Tkais9009
11-18-2008, 07:47 PM
im gonna guess its Chicago, Newyork, St Louis, LA, and fans from a few others saying no...

and fans from Flordia, Pittsburg, and DC saying yes

natepro
11-18-2008, 09:11 PM
No. There just isn't a need for it. The NFL HAS a salary cap, and it was dominated for years by the Patriots. From 2000-2005, the Patriots won three times.

Baseball DOESN'T have won, and they have had one repeat champ in nearly 8 years. And NO team since the Yankees in the late 90's has won three times.

Kinsm
11-18-2008, 09:17 PM
No. There just isn't a need for it. The NFL HAS a salary cap, and it was dominated for years by the Patriots. From 2000-2005, the Patriots won three times.

Baseball DOESN'T have won, and they have had one repeat champ in nearly 8 years. And NO team since the Yankees in the late 90's has won three times.

Their coach is a cheater!

natepro
11-18-2008, 09:27 PM
Their coach is a cheater!

Their players are still good. It's not like they were bad teams.

DewsSox79
11-18-2008, 09:35 PM
what about the Dodgers, White Sox, Mets, Anegles and Cubs? All had a higher payroll or were within 4 million dollars. The Cubs and Angels both look like they could surpass the Red Sox or come close. I jst love how everyone only *****es about the Red Sox and Yankees.

you are correct, everyone is stating the redsox and yankees and there are other teams that need to be included like what you stated. so the finger should be pointed at the:yankees,redsox,whitesox,cubs,mets and angels. not just the redsox and yankees. good point.

as for a cap. I would love to see a cap. but at the same time small market teams need to spend a little bit more.

Example: whitesox 120 million would be 10 million under cap and would be handcuffed to make a move for a free agent SP, so if that is going to be the case with a cap than a team like the marlins need to spend more than 40 million so that the cap works to get more parity in the league. It is only a good idea if the small teams can bump their payroll a little bit if the big market teams cannot go passed a certain payroll.

DewsSox79
11-18-2008, 09:36 PM
also at the same token, it is not how much you spend it is how you spend it. this is such a difficult subject

DewsSox79
11-18-2008, 09:37 PM
im gonna guess its Chicago, Newyork, St Louis, LA, and fans from a few others saying no...

and fans from Flordia, Pittsburg, and DC saying yes

wrong. i would be for it. as i voted

scottythegreat1
11-19-2008, 12:02 AM
I would prefer a salary cap. I wouldnt object to the luxury tax, but it needs to be tougher on constant re-offenders like the Yankees. A luxury tax is a tax that should discourage teams from consistently going over it, and the Yankees are going over it, therefore, it is not effective.

If there was a salary cap, I would say floor of 60 million, ceiling of 125 million.

Greenmonster24
11-19-2008, 12:03 AM
I think the luxuary tax needs to be more harash for going over it. Teams aren't afraid of it. The more you go over the more money you have to put in a pool so that a team 200 million ends up costing 80 million more to go to poor teams in revenue sharing. So if you want a 200 million payroll you have to pay 280 million for the year. I think it keep more teams at the bottom from not spending money. Force them to spend certain amount in order to get the money if not it go to other teams that follow the rules of spending the money and not pocketing it.

oak2455
11-19-2008, 12:08 AM
I pretty sure I read something where it was either Tampa Bay or Florida who recieved 30million this year in revenue and didnt spend it on players....I dont think thats right at all:mad::mad::mad:

GrinderBall41
11-19-2008, 12:09 AM
No no no.

oak2455
11-19-2008, 12:10 AM
????????????

WSU Tony
11-19-2008, 12:24 AM
You just showed why we don't need a salary cap. Money is obviously a huge plus, but it isn't a necessity to win. A cap would just complicate things and create more mobility among players. If the revenue sharing system is increased and more teams have more money, then everyone would be able to bid on the players they want.

Your right, like having the big market teams try to stay successful with half the payroll.

WSU Tony
11-19-2008, 12:26 AM
I would prefer a salary cap. I wouldnt object to the luxury tax, but it needs to be tougher on constant re-offenders like the Yankees. A luxury tax is a tax that should discourage teams from consistently going over it, and the Yankees are going over it, therefore, it is not effective.

If there was a salary cap, I would say floor of 60 million, ceiling of 125 million.

Losing draft picks, perhaps?

nymetsrule
11-19-2008, 12:32 AM
Caping the amount of money somebody could make is socialist. So no, no salary cap.

CubbieSteve
11-19-2008, 12:55 AM
No salary cap, if they have the money let em spend it.

NYMNYRNYJNYK
11-19-2008, 01:05 AM
****ing spend some money

horst_04
11-19-2008, 01:14 AM
Every other major sport has it and they do just fine. It forces teams to play as a team. This is likely the reason teams like the Rays, Marlins, or Twins are able to have success while teams like the Mariners or Yankees can spend a lot but not necessarily relate that to dominance on the field.

whitesoxfan83
11-19-2008, 01:15 AM
Losing draft picks, perhaps?

instead of blaming big markets as usual why dont you blame your owner who is worth 10X that of George Steinbrenner yet invests jack **** into his team? as long as their is revenue sharing there is no need for a salary cap, i find it absurd george steinbrenner has to pay a man 10X richer than him money because that man doesnt invest money into his own team but as long as he keeps paying him and others like him there is no need for a cap. but paying a guy 10X richer than you bc he doesnt invest in his team....that seems more flawed that not having a cap....

laxtonto
11-19-2008, 01:38 AM
The problem is unless you institute an world wide draft and slotting system in the draft along with a cap it would do no good.

Think of it this way, If there was a cap of say 150M, what do you do with the extra money? Spend it by signing every prospect you can in Latin America and draft every HS that says he wont sign and money whip them. If a tram has an extra 100M to blow every year and no way to spend it in FA, it will go some where. It is not like teams will reduce ticket prices....

pelfry34
11-19-2008, 01:42 AM
the fact is the players union would never stand for it (MLBPA?)
they have a luxury tax to try to keep to spending down, just make it a larger hit

tomno00
11-19-2008, 01:45 AM
instead of blaming big markets as usual why dont you blame your owner who is worth 10X that of George Steinbrenner yet invests jack **** into his team? as long as their is revenue sharing there is no need for a salary cap, i find it absurd george steinbrenner has to pay a man 10X richer than him money because that man doesnt invest money into his own team but as long as he keeps paying him and others like him there is no need for a cap. but paying a guy 10X richer than you bc he doesnt invest in his team....that seems more flawed that not having a cap....

well the yankees have a huge advantage in terms of the population of NY and surrounding NJ area, not to mention the ease of public transportation that most cities dont have. This is why they sell out practically every game. The supply will always be there to meet the yankees demand. I dont have a problem with a salary cap. Every other league has it and seems to work fine. Hopefully it would lead to cheaper ticket prices.

Apophis
11-19-2008, 01:52 AM
I think a salaray cap would actually hurt some of the small market teams.. There are baseball teams out there that have gotten a shitload of money from revenue sharing but their owners decide they want to pocket the earnings... People keep mentioning the Sox and Yanks.. Yes there are other teams as well.. maybe they should penalize the owners who are too cheap to re-invest the money back into the team... Say what you want about NY teams... Boston and others... but our owners re-invest the money made back into the teams...There is no need for a cap in baseball..


instead of blaming big markets as usual why dont you blame your owner who is worth 10X that of George Steinbrenner yet invests jack **** into his team? as long as their is revenue sharing there is no need for a salary cap, i find it absurd george steinbrenner has to pay a man 10X richer than him money because that man doesnt invest money into his own team but as long as he keeps paying him and others like him there is no need for a cap. but paying a guy 10X richer than you bc he doesnt invest in his team....that seems more flawed that not having a cap....

You are absolutely correct... So many owners out there are way richer than steinbrenner and all they do is keep getting richer by pocketing the money...

The A Team
11-19-2008, 04:45 PM
For those who've done any research into salary caps, it's plainly apparent that they're a mechanism designed to allow ownership to extract economic rent by underpaying players (on average). Players should be paid what they're worth, just like in any other labor market. Additionally, large market clubs are at an even greater advantage under monopsony conditions as evidenced empirically from the period of the late 1800's until 1975. With a salary cap in place, large market teams would increase their competitive advantage by obtaining greater quantities of amateur talent than their poorer rivals. Again, see the period of 1900-1975 for empirical proof.

Additionally, for those familiar with the reserve clause, league competitiveness has increased since the abolition of a permanent monopsony. The current system allowing 6 years of control prior to free agency is ideal for a league that is seeing revenue growth like the MLB is. Once revenue plateaus, I would recommend a system like the NFL's designed to pool all revenues and distribute them evenly. A salary cap is not necessary under such a system despite the NFL's use.

There is no reasonable rationale for placing a salary cap on a league that is making as much revenue as the MLB. Additionally, a cap will only be agreed to if the league is in danger of folding (example being hockey)

Gunzito22
11-19-2008, 05:16 PM
here is the deal... of the "big spending" teams mentioned above (NYY, NYM, BOS, CWS, CHC, LAA, LAD, STL), 3 of them missed the playoffs this year (NYY, NYM, STL), two were "one and done" (CHC, CWS), and the other 3 did not get into the WS (BOS, LAA, and LAD)... its a short term solution for teams who would not spend the money even if they had it...

So long as you have a minimum salary, you will have teams scrambling for expiring contracts just to stay over the line...

I do not like it, I think NBA and NHL are boring, and the trade deadline in the NFL is non-existent...

in closing, I love the MLB salary structure the way it is, and for those who disagree come talk to me @ Winter Meetings time and @ July 31st (Trade Deadline)

Chillwill2
11-19-2008, 06:57 PM
cumon fellas...why do you think baseball is even talked about during the off season...because of the hot stove..an wut would the hot stove be with a salary cap...not very hot at all

Wyld1
11-19-2008, 07:05 PM
There are ways to circumvent the salary cap. It is done in Football via signing bonuses and deferred payments. The NBA has a soft cap that allows for going over and has the Larry Bird rule.

The bottom line is that there are too many teams...many that have no fan base and others whose owners don't give a ****. Do away with them and you will see a more competitive product without a salary cap.

Cheezombie
11-19-2008, 08:32 PM
I don't like the idea. When it happened in football, players started moving around a lot more because they wouldn't fit into their budget. I think the luxury tax is fine.

bkny
11-19-2008, 09:40 PM
to me payroll really dosent matter if you have the right players and team chemistry then i think thats good enough just look at the rays

WarriorFan4Life
11-19-2008, 11:42 PM
we need a salary cap. boo yankees and red sox

WarriorFan4Life
11-19-2008, 11:43 PM
and a least the angels, white sox, and chicago cubs are not as arrogant as the redsox and the yankees

nithanyo
11-20-2008, 12:31 AM
Baseball is the least fairest sport of any of the major 4 sports in NA and this is why:

1)A team like the rays havce to develop players for 10+ years before the yankeees, or redsox, or mets just come along and swoop them away

2)Rebuilding is painful and kills the fanbase

3)Losing allstar players to free agency kills the fanbase(look at marlins)

4)Money doesnt always = winning, but its a heck of alot easier

5)The same division that has the Yankees and red sox have the Rays and Orioles

6)Teams cant stay competitive for more than 2-4 years without spending their balls off

7)Players will be attracted to smaller market teams since they can muster up the same amount of money as the bigger market teams

8)Revenue sharing is BS.

9)IMO the yankees and red sox equals Barry Bonds and Mark Mcgwire. Same concept. You juice up on steroids to hit better. You juice up on money to play better.

10)Since when was buying a championship ever fair?

nithanyo
11-20-2008, 12:37 AM
before you come and say well the yankees havent won a championship in 8 years well look at this people...

Take the AL east for example. In the last 10 years Yanks+Redsox have made the playoffs a combined 18 times. The other 3 teams in the division have made it to the playoffs a combined once in the same span. Alot like the old feudal system where the rich nobility get richer while the poor get poorer

Wyld1
11-20-2008, 12:55 PM
There are many people on here who have no clue when they speak of the spending done by the elite teams. They foolishly say that these teams buy their players when indeed many don't. Case in fact for the slow witted:

2008 Yankees:

C Posada...farm system
1b Giambi FA
2b Cano...farm system
SS Jeter...farm system
3b ARod traded for players that came from the yankee farm system
RF Abreu traded for players that came from the yankee farm system
CF Damon FA
LF Nady traded for players that came fom the yankee farm system
DH Matsui FA

SP Wang...came from the yankee farm system
SP pettitte FA whom played and was developed in the yankee farm system before stint in Houston.
SP Mussina FA
SP joba...came from the yankee farm system
SP Hughes/Kennedy...came from the yankee farm system but failed this past year
SP in place of Hughes/Kennedy...Ponson (waivers), Rasner (waivers), Aceves FA mexican league but went through the yankee farm system first.

Closer: Rivera...came up through the farm system
LRP: Marte traded for yankee prospects
LRP: Coke...came up through the farm system
RRP: Bruney..waivers
Veras: Yankee farm
Ramirez: Yankee farm via independant league

So I see only a few FA on this incomplete roster though they garnered the most time. So all you crybabies who claim they buy their players need to stfu as you don't have a clue.

If a salary cap was introduced the teams that spend now would still spend...they would only have to do so within the parameters of the cap. That said, the same teams that don't spend would continue not to spend...so it wouldn't make a differance.

The A Team
11-20-2008, 06:38 PM
Wyld1, what I think salary cap supporters would point to is the fact that many of those guys developed in the Yankee farm have been lifelong Yankees. A team like the Marlins does not have the option of employing a guy they developed for 10 years, even if they operated under a business model like the Yankees (which is fairly unique in that it's fairly accepting of negative revenues in a given year).

However you're right to point out the cluelessness of salary cap supporters. Caps are empirically shown to kill competitiveness. Teams will turn out weaker products across the board. Even more importantly, large market teams will have a greater comparative advantage over small market teams via scouting, amateur signings, etc. To provide a simple, bastardized example, imagine the Yankees could only spend 150 mil on their team yet were making 250 mil in revenues. Many assume that ownership would pocket the loose change, but in reality they will re-invest large amounts of it into scouting and player development, mostly offshore scouting where draft rules don't apply. The result would be a stockpiling of talent in the Yankees system that would allow them to operate below the cap with a consistently superior product.

edit: In case it's unclear why this reinvestment would occur, consider this. As of 2005, a World Series champion team made about 15 million more than the average playoff team and 40 million more than a team that did not make the playoffs. Correct for market size and large market teams can probably expect an additional 60 mil in revenues per WS and an additional 35 mil per playoff appearance on average.